Harlem B'stone for Under A Million Bucks?
Speaking of Harlem, we didn't think it was possible to find a decent brownstone there--especially on the West Side--for under a million bucks. Unless this listing is way out-of-date, we are clearly misinformed. According to The Post, a four-story brownstone at 524 W. 143rd Street recently sold for $946,000, more than $50,000 off the asking price of $999,000. Not only that, but it took 14 weeks to move the merchandise. The 3,800-square-foot house has a two-bedroom, one-bath unit over three-bedroom, one-bath owner's triplex. The house also boasts original details, fireplaces in each bedroom, landscaped private garden, Jacuzzi, storage and washer/dryer. Out of curiosity, do you think there's a lot of overlap between would-be Brooklyn brownstone owners and their Harlem counterparts? The biggest thing both areas have in common is a healthy supply of architecturally significant brownstones many of which are candidates for major rehabilitation. We personally know a couple of people who were actively looking in both areas before falling in love with a specific houes in one.
Just Sold! [NY Post]
11 Comments
By KC on June 21, 2005 1:59 PM
By Dave on June 21, 2005 2:32 PM
this b-stone is really narrow, and it is just outside the historic district boundaries, both of which bring the price down slightly... plus its in the 145th and broadway area, which I still consider one of more sketchy parts of harlem... i qoute from a 2003 Times article, "Over all, the study found, the typical house, which sold for $38,000 in 1975, sold in 2002 for $397,000 outside a historic district and $458,000 in one"
By Anonymous on June 21, 2005 3:23 PM
I know there is significant overlap between Brooklyn and Harlem brownstone buyers because I know folks who ended up in Bed-Stuy/Clinton Hill after trying to get into the Harlem market. If someone is interested in brownstone living for less than $1.25 million, Harlem and Central Brooklyn are two of the only options left. My sense is that several people start out in Harlem and end up in BK.
By Anonymous on June 21, 2005 3:38 PM
plenty of good options in Bay Ridge, well under 1MM
By breukelyn on June 21, 2005 4:12 PM
as someone that was a crossover harlem/brooklyn buyer i have to say that what really made the difference was the relative ease of the brooklyn market and the overall general better neighborhood quality relative to harlem.
the prospect of buying in harlem was a much more harrowing process...many of the places were being sold by sketchy brokers, had sketchy situations, or were in sketchy neighborhoods....harlem is still very much house by house, block by block...even the much coveted mount morris park area still has many burned out buildings, including the one owned by kareem abdul jabar that is reportedly stymied in city bureaucracy. many more of the places there have sro issues, or are in general worse shape. what we realized is that the average gut reno you are going to do in harlem is much more of an undertaking in harlem than it is in brooklyn.
also, the broker community in harlem is much more above-board, transparent, and established, which made me feel more comfortable as a first time homebuyer.
if any of you read the commentary on harlemhome@yahoogroups, you'd see that many of the issues harlemites are dealing with tend to be slightly different than what folks in bedstuy or clinton hill are dealing with.
lastly, at 149th, wash heights is a totally different story than even harlem. 149th feels about 5-10yrs behind harlem...many of the places we looked at up there still had squatters in them or were next to (literally) places even brokers identified as crackhouses.
there's some amazing architecture in wheights, especially the jumel places, but there are very few services (e.g. groceries) in that nabe
go brooklyn!
By breukelyn on June 21, 2005 4:13 PM
sorry, meant to say that the broker community in brooklyn is much more above board, transparent and established...not harlem...
By pietro on June 21, 2005 4:19 PM
i started off in harlem and ended up in bed stuy. after looking and looking i just couldn't afford harlem and found bed stuy to be a nicer, better kept neighborhood. plus the houses i saw in harlem in my price range were just disgusting and not salvagable.
i know others in bed stuy who did the same thing.
By Brooklyn Enquiererer on June 21, 2005 4:53 PM
In fact the rumor has it that the star couple Heath Ledger and Michelle Williams initially looked in Harlem, but they quickly settled for Brooklyn because it is just cooler! :-)
By malymis on June 21, 2005 5:20 PM
Harlem is sooooo far away. We didn't consider it becouse of location. Our lives are downtown and soon in Brooklyn.
By lk on June 22, 2005 1:35 PM
Its interesting to me that the 'brownstone debate' remains wholly Manhattan-Brooklyn-Harlem based. In the historic areas of Jersey City, Hoboken, and Union City, you can get a Victorian brownstone for about $800k (more in Hoboken I think), yet somehow its still uncool to 'live in Jersey'. People would rather deal with SROs and crack neighborhoods than live on the left bank of the Hudson. When you consider the history and development of brownstone neighborhoods, all of the development happened at about the same time, on both sides of the river(s). What gives? Is NJ that horrible?
By Isabat on July 5, 2005 10:45 AM
It may also be that this house was in contract for an extremely long time. I have heard many stories of people who entered into contract on Harlem brownstones but who were not able to close for many months, sometimes even a year, because of problems with the seller.
When the sale finally does happen, it happens at the price that was agreed upon long earlier, which in today's market looks inexpensive.
Post a comment
Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.

It does seem a little low